Again, I don't understand you. When Clinton was in office, the reverse was true, which makes sense, if you think about it. If that's really your primary beef with democrats, I think you need to examine this dichotomy outside of merely W's term. EDIT: Bummer. Looks like I may be on halfbreed's ignore list.
How long until they just implant a chip in all of us that tracks our every movement, thought and action?
Haha, of course not. I don't use the ignore list. I didn't answer because I went out to celebrate my grandmother's 81st birthday!! I understand what you're saying about the differences. However, I think more of what Republicans complained about was not focused on how America did things wrong but rather was focused on Clinton, himself. Much of what I see from the Democrats is about smearing America (i.e. Murtha and the Meditha Marines). Now I was only in middle school and high school for the Clinton years so I may not be as up to speed as some of you but that's the impression I got as a teenager growing up in those times.
halfbreed, I appreciate the response. I don't agree with it, but it's appreciated, regardless. You'll disagree with this, but your view of the Democratic Party is clearly based in large measure on the propaganda (yes, I know what the word means, and it sure as hell applies here) put out by the GOP and the Bush Administration. That, and some rather lousy Democratic leadership, poor at articulating Democratic views. As screwed up as this country is, in a lot of ways, it's difficult to run against the party in power, without pointing out how they are SCREWING OUR COUNTRY UP! We have record budget deficits. Should Democrats ignore that reality? We have tens of millions of Americans without health insurance, many of them middle class. Should Democrats ignore that reality? Our foriegn policy is in a shambles, we are in a war with no decernable end, our allies are angry with our government, and our friends are wondering what in the hell the United States is doing. Should Democrats ignore that reality? I could go on in that vein for a long time, but I'm a very slow typist, so I'll quit. My point is, how on earth is the political party out of power, attempting to regain power and change national and international policy, going to do that without pointing to the failures of the party in power? If you can figure out a way for Democrats to return to power, by lying and praising the Bush Administration and the GOP Congress, then by all means, tell us how to do it. If we all sit in a circle, singing kumbaya, while bowing to a portrait of George W. Bush, do you think it's going to get Democrats elected? And I'll end with this thought... Bush ran as a compassonate conservative, and a fiscal conservative, in the 2000 elections. He lied. He ran on a platform of fear and misrepresentation of the facts (to be kind), in 2004. Do you seriously see that GOP campaign as a positive one? Let's have a little reality check, OK? Keep D&D Civil.
I don't want to get into a lot of details (otherwise this may go WAY off topic), but I really, really disagree. There have been plenty of threads here pointing out how the democrats complaints (for example) regarding the Iraq war were damn near exacttly the same as the republicans when Clinton got involved in the Balkans. More importantly, if spying on every American and trampling civil liberties isn't smearing america, I don't know what is. Good post Deckard, and thanks for the reply halfbreed.
Hmmm...I don't know what's more interesting. The fact that some of you think I am incapable of forming my own beliefs or that some of you ask for my opinion and then tell me how dumb I am for believing that. Arrogance, plain and simple. I don't need a reality check. In fact, in this thread, I believe I'm the only one who has admitted the misgivings of the party I voted for. Tell me again why I need a reality check. This is important for some of you to realize: As Democrats you DO NOT have a monopoly on truth. Period. Stop treating those of us with different views as babies who need to be told what's right. I don't mean to sound confronational but when I see that I'm being treated as a child I don't appreciate it. Now, to your points. It's not propaganda that I'm buying into. If you guys would read what I'm writing you'll see that it's not that I think the Democrats always say what's wrong with the Republicans but rather what's wrong with the COUNTRY. I am not sure what's so hard to understand about that. Blaming America for what's wrong with the rest of the world is something Democrats have been doing for as long as I can remember. I don't remember the last time I heard a Republican say that other countries are poor because Americans are greedy, for example. If you want more, I'll provide. I've also noticed a tendency to change the meaning of what I've said to suit you. Trampling on civil rights is horrible but it's not smearing America. Again, my problems are with the Democrats blaming the COUNTRY and its PEOPLE for the problems of others not with them blaming the administration.
You're certainly entitled to having an opinion of your own but that doesn't mean that others shouldn't question you on it or point out what seem to be logical inconsitencies. For instance: How is Murtha stating a view that he believes some Marines committed an atrocity in Iraq smearing the whole country? That does strike me as a logical inconsistency since a platoon of Marines in Iraq in no way represents the whole country and further as a society that values the rule of law wouldn't we be upholding the country and US values by insisting that alleged wrong doing by our troops should be investigated and if found true be punished? You're free to hold any views that you want and you're right Democrats don't have a monopoly on the truth. No one does. That said what's wrong with some examination and even criticism of how you formed those views.
My problem with Murtha is that he looks for bad stories and then when he gets wind of possible scenarios he talks about them as fact. Before any of this information has been confirmed, Murtha has already decided what the truth is and is using it to smear ALL American troops over there. Regardless of WHO committed this crime, Murtha is using it as an indicator of what the Marines do in Iraq. He hasn't ever highlighted anything positive from the Marines. I agree this was probably a bad example, though. About my views: I am open to discussing my views. I am not open to discussing my views with people who are unwilling to discuss their views without a sense of arrogance and without being pedantic. I have never thought I had all the answers but it seems so many on this forum believe they do. I'm always willing to discuss the issues with people but I'm not interested in being taught like a child.
That makes no sense. I wanted to understand what you meant, i.e., I gave you the benefit if the doubt. I don't agree. If simply not agreeing is arrogance, I suggest you buy a dictionary. Really, it's discourse. Don't be surprised if during a discussion you are made aware of things previously unknown to you - that's damn near the best reason to engage! Explain to me how I gave you the impression of a "truth monopoly". I'm not treating you as a child, I asked a sincere question because you're statements made no sense. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - you get pissed because you think I am touting some sort of "elitist truth monopoly" yet at the same time you view the position of "democrats blame america" as inscrutable truth. I hate both parties. Seriously. The democrats are a bunch of whiny followers who can't seem to decide what group of people they want to identify with, and what causes to oppose or stand behind. While the label of "flip-flopper" for John Kerry was disengenious, the label as a whole fits the democrats rather well. I guess one could argue it fits republicans too, but it's less "changing opinion" and more "getting caught lying"... Meh - I digress. You brought it up. To me, civil rights are the fundamental tenet of America. If they get trampled, America is more than smeared - it ceases to exist as anything other than a name.
rhad - most of what I said wasn't directed towards you. Sorry if I left that impression. The one part that was (smearing) is one where I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I tend to define smearing as besmirching America's name for personal gain. It's quite possible we just have different definitions, which is perfectly fine.
